The passing of former President Godfrey Binaisa presented a simple test to the Ugandan media – and I am afraid many failed it.

First thing to note is that the event had been expected by all editors for some time now. It did not take them by surprise. There have been false alarms alleging the guy’s death over the last couple of years. It therefore follows that all Ugandan media houses certainly had the opportunity to prepare their best for this event, and therefore what we have seen is the very best they are capable of. It is like Nelson Mandela dies today – the South African (and indeed world) media will be well prepared to serve their very best in terms of content, backgrounders and design.

I think Daily Monitor did well with Fred Guweddeko’s series. What I don’t know is when they commissioned him to compile it. If they didn’t and just accepted it from him when he offered it on hearing that Binaisa was dead, then there are some risks there.

Of course Guweddeko is a great resource for he loves research. But I have had to manage him over several projects for over a decade. (By the way Fred is my childhood friend as we grew up together for the very early part of our lives at Kitala, Entebbe road, so I qualify to comment on him fairly and sympathetically. Among other things, he is one of the most fantastic footballers SMACK Kisubi ever had. His father was an ace fighter pilot who once commanded the Uganda Airforce, etc… From university, while I went for greener pastures in Kenya, he did the patriotic thing and followed Museveni to the bush. Of course the military genes run in his blood.) When you talk to him today, you realise the bush war and subsequent governance left an indelible mark on him. He knows many things he may not say because of ‘military discipline’, and uses research to bring them out…

Guweddeko has very strong political views, and his research can sometimes concentrate on those facts that support his viewpoint. This is only human. So an editor who commissions him needs to crosscheck some of the very interesting things he submits. I am not saying it was necessary in the Binaisa case, nor am I saying it was not done. Guweddeko does NOT lie. But he sometimes concentrates too much on some very interesting facts.

Other than Guweddeko’s pieces, I did not perceive any signs of preparedness in the media for Binaisa’s highly anticipated death. I must admit that being out of the country, I read all my Ugandan newspapers on the Internet, so there might be some good works that I missed if they were not posted on net.

Examples:

If only for our selfish industry reasons, did any media mention that Godfrey was father to the late Charles Binaisa, co-founder of the Uganda Journalists Association? (Charles and Kintu Musoke hastily set up UJA to meet Kwame Nkrumah on a trip to Ghana and they needed some status to describe themselves with.) Charles later became a top editor before dying in an accident in 1970.


Again for selfish reasons, has Major Roland Kakooza Mutale been interviewed? He had the greatest run-ins with the Binaisa administration. Then he switched from being a Binaisa critic to his strongest supporter, exposing plots to assassinate or overthrow the man, with verbatim quotes of the conspirators. “Binaisa kasokanga aggula bifulukwa lero yagguddewo ekirimu abantu” (Binaisa is so fond of storming abandoned houses but today he has stormed one with occupants in..) Mutale quoted Muwanga verbatim, allegedly in a midnight meeting at Katwe.


The political writers, at a time of approaching elections and constitutional referenda in Kenya and Zanzibar, surely ought to have revisited the umbrella that Binaisa defended so fiercely, and went down defending. For Kenya is under an umbrella, and Zanzibar has just voted to adopt an umbrella, UK is under the same, whatever fancy new names these umbrellas are called.

At a time when the Buganda question is back – did it ever go away – to disturb the ruling party at the coming elections, Binaisa’s stances on the Buganda question are also worth analysing. In 1979 and 1980, he was widely supported by non-Baganda largely for his perceived anti-Buganda stance. Today, Museveni is facing a situation of the Buganda vote since his fights with the Kabaka became public last year. People like Binaisa and John Nagenda (and myself if I mattered) say that Mengo and Buganda are not the same thing, though to attempt to separate Kabaka and Buganda is an exercise in futility. Can someone like Nagenda or some Makerere scholar have been approached by the media to make a strong analysis of how Binaisa saw Buganda and how, had he not been militarily interrupted, he could have put the Buganda matter to rest (of course after he helped formalize the mess Obote created in the sixties).

Veterans like Bidandi and Kintu Musoke are very much around, how much have they been utilised by the media to understand Binaisa? Then there are former journalists from the fifties and sixties who are still living with their mental faculties still intact. There is one Kavuma now working for Swanair, and AD Lubowa who is in retirement at his house at Maya, a few kilometres on Masaka Road. These were senior journalists, not simple reporters in their day. Couldn’t they be better interviewees on Binaisa than some of today’s politicians?

Binaisa was largely (seen as) a Nyerere project, which many saw as preparing ground for the return of Obote. In fact it was Binaisa’s not living up to those expectations that he was deposed. Which makes me wonder why Museveni backed the removal of Binaisa, the latter having demoted him notwithstanding, when the umbrella politics was what the Movement was really about later. By helping the UPC remove Binaisa, the stage was set for the December 1980 elections that were to end in five years of bloodshed. Why didn’t Museveni prefer the UNLF to remain and he and others compete for power on individual merit? These are some questions political analysts could have been asked to handle. But back to the Nyerere hand, how much of this did the media give to the readers, especially the young who do not know? Does the average Ugandan media consumer know that the Tanzanian president was the most powerful man in Kampala for a few years, and both presidents and opposition leaders were always shuttling between Entebbe and Dar es Salaam for ‘consultation’ before any important steps were taken? Are there lessons from that era during which Binaisa ‘ruled’ Uganda? Was Binaisa ever a president of Uganda, when Lule was removed for disagreeing with UPC and ended up under House Arrest in Dar es Salaam and Binaisa was removed when it became apparent that he was planning to block Obote from returning from Dar es Salaam? Did Museveni play a similar role for Rwanda as Nyerere played for Uganda? How then did Kigali and Kampala relations fall to a level of war (in Kisangani) after so much sacrifice Uganda made for Kigali? Are there recent parallels? From the Bianisa era, from the day he lost power, why is it that Uganda has quarreled with all its neighbours (especially under Museveni) EXCEPT Tanzania? Why can’t a cantankerous Uganda ever quarrel with Tanzania? Is it just natural love between the two that they can’t quarrel or does the answer lie in the Binaisa era? Do many people know that Uganda and Tanzania had a lengthy border dispute that only ended last year but one, but it never made it to the press or political speeches, and was handled by surveyors from the two countries? Could the same differences be equally handled harmoniously with Kenya? Remember Migingo?

There are several things the Binaisa passing could have brought to the fore, ESPECIALLY as the event was widely expected and the media had all the time to delve and wander. And the journalists did not have to know or write these stories. They only had to ask the right people to talk. What happened to that key aspect of the job called ‘sourcing’? If what we saw was the best the Ugandan media is capable of, then Mwalimu Mwesige’s have a lot more to do while the tired and faint hearted Buwembo’s take off, far away from the heat, to drink Kilimanjaro beer in Dar es Salaam’s sweaty pubs.

If you are a journalist working for independent media in Uganda, the police have probably summoned you for questioning and possibly even charged you in the courts. If not, you know colleagues who have. Over the years, it is newspaper and radio journalists who have faced the wrath of a duplicitous government – it preaches free speech and gleefully muzzles independent media at the same time. Now things are changing. The government is looking farther afield.

The police last week called in Mr. Timothy Kalyegira, owner of The Uganda Record, an online publication. The state is interested in his reports suggesting that al-Shabaab may have claimed responsibility for the deadly 7/11 bombings in Kampala but that does not make it true that they did the deed. In Mr. Kalyegira’s own words, his website makes the “insinuation or suggestion … that this could have been a state-orchestrated crime”. For that, detectives have not only interrogated him repeatedly, they have also searched his home and taken away his computer, his cell phone and other stuff. Why a man’s laptop and phone should be carried away for expressing an opinion defies logic. But not entirely. The investigators’ working theory seems to be that Mr. Kalyegira is working in concert with more sinister forces to trash the image of the Government of the Republic of Uganda. They want to know who his correspondents are.

“We are monitoring media by whatever description,” the officer in charge of the Media Crimes Department in the Uganda Police Force told this correspondent. Commissioner of Police Simon Kuteesa added: “It is not just the police. All national security organs are interested in media [content].”

Sure, but anyone who has read Mr. Kalyegira’s writings over the years would not bother with him, for the man loves being contrarian on just about every subject of national import. Besides, other Ugandans have also raised, although quietly, views similar to Mr. Kalyegira’s regarding the bombings. And after 9/11 in the United States, some Americans alleged that their government was behind the tragedy so as to find a reason to attack oil-rich Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq and take control of the oil.

By going after Mr. Kalyegira, the government is lending credence to his claims. It is also helping spread them because now people are heading to the Uganda Record website to read the postings for themselves. If the government has nothing to hide, so the argument goes, it would let Mr. Kalyegira be. It would let his views, which he says are inspired by some unnamed Seer, compete with other views out there. He predicted apocalypse for the Great Lakes Region in 2008. No apocalypse came. Years ago the government tried unsuccessfully to shut down Radio Katwe. The website went on to run stories that make Mr. Kalyegira’s opinion pale completely in comparison. As of this week, that website has not been updated in more than 18 months. It is “disappearing” naturally.

The most significant aspect here is that the government is getting interested in what Ugandans are writing online – and it is doing something about it. The passing, in the immediate aftermath of the 7/11 bombings, of The Regulation of Interception of Communications Bill, will likely embolden the government to go after online work more aggressively. It will snoop around more, hacking into people’s emails in the name of ensuring national security.

Media observers in Uganda argue that the Kalyegira case is just the beginning. There will be more government interest in online content as more Ugandans start using the World Wide Web spurred by increased access to electricity and the presence of fibre optic technology, which is speeding up Internet connectivity and driving down prices. According to the Uganda Communications Commission, there were 27,590 Internet subscriptions with an estimated number of users standing at 2.8 million (9% of the population) in 2009 compared to 15,500 subscriptions and an estimated 1 million users in 2007. These numbers must be soaring given the raging market wars amongst service providers.

“The government has not had a systematic way of dealing with online content,” said Mr. J.B. Mayiga, the co-ordinator of the Uganda Media Development Foundation, a Kampala-based media training and advocacy body. “But the Kalyegira case maybe a precursor for something more concrete – a more specific law – because the government is not happy with people expressing themselves freely at any forum.”

Ms. Rachel Mugarura is one of Uganda’s foremost bloggers and says the events of last week may not readily have any chilling effect on online users. “I have no concerns,” she said. “There is very little political debate in the Ugandan blogosphere and there is no consistency.” She added that for many Ugandans, mostly younger urbanites, “blogging is an escape, so it is a little frivolous”. (Make your own assessment by visiting a website that aggregates Ugandan blogs).

For now, there may be merit in the government going after citizens’ online work in search of terrorists, and possibly paedophiles. But there is no merit in questioning someone and threatening him with sedition charges for openly expressing his views. The government is better off working efficiently to deliver goods and services, to respect human rights, to observe rule of law and to generally act in a manner that does not leave citizens ascribing evil to it.

The African Centre for Media Excellence has developed a programme with the Revenue Watch Institute and the Thomson Reuters Foundation to teach journalists how to report effectively on oil and gas, an industry that could bring huge benefits to Uganda if managed properly.

Revenue Watch monitors public finances, advises governments on policy choices and campaigns against corruption in mining and the oil and gas industry. The training programme is its first that directly targets journalists, and their role in promoting public debate on the sector.

Six Ugandan journalists travelled to Ghana in January 2011 and attended a training workshop, or Course A, that launched the programme. That workshop offered Ghanaian and Ugandan journalists insights into the industry, and opportunities for first-hand reporting in a country that had just begun oil production.

ACME brought the six back together on May 7, 2011 at its training centre in Kampala for a second workshop – Course B – with the focus on Uganda. This workshop was an opportunity to investigate aspects of the industry that will have a direct impact on the lives of ordinary Ugandans.

The six participants, who include television, radio and print journalists, are producing stories as part of the programme. They are the first of a series of journalists that ACME will train over three years as part of the Revenue Watch programme.

This is a unique training programme in the sense that participants are not left to their own devices after a few days of training. Here we team the participants up with mentors for continuous engagement over several months. The mentors do comment – via telephone, face-to-face and online interaction – on the stories after they have run, with a view to making later reporting better. The participants can also apply for reporting grants.

The current programme is a pilot and runs until the end of 2012. If successful, it could be expanded to other countries.

The High Court in Kampala has dismissed a counter suit filed by the Ugandan government against the Central Broadcasting Station (CBS), which was shut down in September 2009 on allegations of inciting violence.

On September 10 2009, the Broadcasting Council shut down and revoked the licence of CBS for allegedly using it to “mobilise and incite the public and sowing seeds of hatred among Ugandans” leading to the death of more than 27 people during the riots that followed a standoff between the central government and the seat of the Buganda kingdom. CBS is owned by the Buganda Kingdom.

Over 100 CBS employees later filed a lawsuit asking court to declare the revocation of radio station’s licence “unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, null, and void”. The employees also sought about Shs 3 billion in compensation, arguing that the “unjustifiable” closure had rendered them jobless.

However in February 2010, the government also filed a counter suit seeking to compel CBS to pay aggravated damages for allegedly mobilising and inciting the public into violence and rebelling against lawful authority.

On August 20, High Court Judge Vincent Zehurikize dismissed the government’s suit with no costs to CBS. He said that authority to take disciplinary action against any media house lies with the Media Council and not the government.

The judge ruled, “The fact that the government received complaints from the general public and security agencies does not give it a right to sue on behalf of the citizens but it can institute criminal proceedings against those who breached the law as a way to protect the citizens.”

The ruling paves way for the continuation of the case in which the CBS employees want the government to reopen the radio station and also pay them Shs 3billion in compensation in lost earnings.

Mr Frederick Ssempebwa, the lawyer representing CBS employees, told the media outside court that “government has powers to license for example, but those powers don’t include bringing a case for compensation against CBS.”

Mr Ssempebwa added that the suit filed by the CBS employees will resume in October this year. “The employees still have their case for compensation; that one we shall argue,” he said.

CBS radio was one of the four stations that were shut down in September 2009 after the dramatic standoff between the central government and the Buganda Kingdom.

The other three stations, Suubi FM, Radio Sapienta, Radio Two (Akaboozi Kubiri), were later opened with stern warnings after they apologised for the misconduct of their employees. They were also forced to dismiss some presenters and journalists that the government complained against.

Critics and human rights defenders accused the Broadcasting Council of acting on the orders of a government that was besieged and condemned the decision to shut down the radio stations as a gross infringement on freedom of expression.

The closure of the four radio stations is reported to have had a chilling effect on journalists from other media houses, who were reported to be exercising undue self-censorship. Others claimed receiving orders from their managers or radio station owners not to focus on the Buganda kingdom and other controversial political stories.

In January a Cabinet sub-committee formed to address the CBS closure came up with 12 conditions for reopening the radio station. CBS management was required to apologise to the government “through the Broadcasting Council”, relocate its studio from the Kabaka’s palace (Bulange), withdraw the court case brought by employees against the government, dismiss journalists and presenters who allegedly participated in inciting the September riots, and follow the minimum broadcasting standards.

Related Articles

Government sets 12 conditions for reopening CBS radio
Mengo Rejects Government Terms On CBS
In Defence of Freedom of Speech
Buganda Anthem banned on radios
CBS Told to Move Out of Bulange

The chaos and shame of the primary elections of Uganda’s ruling National Resistance Movement, which climaxed into the delegates conference at Namboole over the weekend, gave local journalists a lot of news to cover.

Then the journalists decided to become part of the news. The Daily Monitor reported on September 13 that some journalists covering the NRM’s delegates conference asked for and received Shs 4 million shillings (USD1,800) from party officials. A party official confirmed he had indeed given the journalists money after they confronted him with a list of those who were covering the proceedings.

Several young journalists who believe it is wrong for journalists to accept money from the people they cover have called me to express their outrage about the actions of some of their colleagues who covered the NRM’s conference. One described how journalists were fighting for money just like the delegates who had been bused in from all over the country. “It was so shameful,” she said. She was also concerned that we were about to see a repeat of the 2006 election campaigns where journalists used to register with different party officials to get paid for doing what their organisations pay them to do.

The practice of journalists accepting money from sources has come to be known as brown envelope journalism in many parts of Africa. Elsewhere it is sometimes called cheque book journalism. It is a deeply rooted and institutionalised practice in Uganda.

This practice takes several forms. In some cases, journalists work for media houses that have clear (but obviously questionable) policies that require sources to pay for transport (and sometimes meals) for the journalists who cover them. In others, journalists approach sources or event organisers and boldly ask for money before they provide any coverage. Others sometimes go back to the sources after they have published their stories and either hint on expecting a reward for a job well done or directly ask for their payoff. Many event organisers have now decided to set aside a budget for media coverage. After a press conference or such related media event, they will ask all the journalists present to sign for their envelopes.

These practices are generally considered unethical under both local and international journalism codes of ethics. According to Uganda’s statutory professional code of ethics, “No journalist shall solicit or accept bribes in an attempt to publish or suppress the publication of a story.”

But some Ugandan journalists do not consider accepting a transport refund from a press conference organiser as bribery. They call it “facilitation.” I am yet to attend a media workshop in Uganda where journalists can reach some consensus on what is acceptable and what is clearly unethical.

Mainstream media houses such as The Monitor and The New Vision have in recent months published reminders about the integrity of their journalism and reminded the public that they don’t have to pay journalists in return for coverage. Indeed, these media houses provide their journalists with transport (and sometimes meal allowances) for covering different events.

Some journalists from smaller media houses rationalise their willingness to accept money from sources on the grounds that they don’t get any transport and related allowances from their organizations. Others blame it on poor pay.

But the list of journalists who have signed for brown envelopes or quietly received money from sources suggests that the practice is not limited only to poorly paid journalists or those from smaller media houses.

It doesn’t matter what media house a journalist works for. Accepting money from sources degrades the integrity of journalism.

Some of the young journalists who have called me to express their concern about this practice have asked if we can’t organise some training workshop to address the issue. But too many workshops have covered the question of ethics, including accepting money from sources, and the practice is still with us.

What we need are stronger self-regulatory mechanisms within the industry. Local media houses should emulate The Monitor and The New Vision and routinely remind the public that their journalists are not allowed to accept money from the sources they cover.

ACME recently invited editors, regulators, training institutions and representatives of media associations to a consultative workshop to discuss a draft of proposed media guidelines for the coverage of the 2011 elections. One of the principles in those guidelines relates to bribery and corruption among journalists. The idea was that media houses should develop these guidelines in a participatory process, sign on, and share them with the public. Journalists and their media houses would then be held accountable against those very standards they have set themselves.
Under such guidelines and the integrity notices that Vision and Monitor have shared recently, journalists who are found to have accepted money from sources should be shown the door or face some serious sanctions and this should be publicized.

We also need more media owners who understand that it’s their business to provide for their journalists. They should pay their journalists well if they care about the quality of their final product.

Obviously, the question of ethics in journalism is a complex one. It involves the personal conscience and values of the journalist, the values of the organisation as well as those of society.

Some have argued that envelope journalism is a reflection of the corruption in our broader sociopolitical system. But this does not absolve the journalist. We should hold ourselves against higher standards than those by which we hold the people we cover.
***

Related External Story

The brown envelope has bastardised journalism

Uganda's Minister of Information Kabakumba Masiko issues statement saying government unsatisfied with ruling...

Uganda’s Constitutional Court has scrapped the provision on sedition from the Penal Code in a move that lawyers and media groups have described as a milestone in the enforcement of freedom of expression and press freedom.

Five Justices of the Constitutional Court unanimously declared the law unconstitutional in a judgement read by court registrar Ruhinda Ntengye on Wednesday.

The decision followed a joint petition filed by Andrew Mwenda, the Managing Editor of the Independent, and the East African Media Institute—Uganda Chapter (EAMI). Mwenda and the media group had challenged the Penal Code provisions on sedition and promotion of sectarianism on grounds that they contravened the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution.

Sedition is where a person utters or publishes statements “aimed at bringing hatred, contempt or disaffection” against the President, the Government or the Judiciary. The punishment was imprisonment for up to seven years.

The five Constitutional Court judges unanimously agreed that “The sections on sedition are inconsistent with the Constitution," Ntengye said. “They are therefore null and void."

James Nangwala, who represented Mwenda, said the decision “is a milestone in so far as enforcing fundamental rights to freedom of expression and of the press and other media is concerned”.

He added that it was a “licence for people to criticise, comment and participate in managing their affairs”, which previously “has been academic”.

Kenneth Kakuru, who represented EAMI, said “You can now say anything without fear. The victory is not for journalists alone but for everybody”. He said the law on sedition had narrowed constitutional rights journalists and the public at large.

The decision nullifies a number of pending criminal cases against various journalists who are facing charges of sedition.

The court case stemmed from a 2005 petition filed by Andrew Mwenda, then political editor of the Monitor and host of the Andrew Mwenda Live talk show on Kfm, after he was charged with sedition following his statements on the radio show about Uganda’s culpability in the death of Sudan People’s Liberation Movement leader John Garang.

Mwenda and EAMI had also petitioned the court against the offence of promoting sectarianism but the judges upheld these provisions. Nangwala said they would appeal this decision.

The lawyer said he had been particularly encouraged by the Court’s pronouncement that “there is nothing called young democracy; you are either a democracy or not”. Many Uganda leaders, as others elsewhere in Africa, have over the years justified laws that criminalise publication of certain information on grounds that theirs were still new nations and young democracies that are concerned more about the promotion of national unity and development.

Haruna Kanaabi, the Executive Secretary of the Independent Media Council of Uganda welcomed the court decision. “It is a big victory for freedom of expression in Uganda,” he said. “More space has been created for people who want to express their views especially on political matters without fear of being arrested.”

Kanaabi added, “The media will no longer give people a platform cautiously. They can use the platform to express matters that are important without fear.”

Daniel Kalinaki, the Managing Editor of the Daily Monitor, who is currently facing charges related to publication of confidential government documents, said “The Constitutional Court ruling which has struck down the colonial-era law on sedition is a triumph for progressive views over the backward, unworthy and primitive forces that seek to hold us back and imprison our freedom to hold those in power accountable for their actions.”

Timothy Kalyegira of the online publication, Uganda Record, was the latest victim of the law on sedition. He was charged early this month after he questioned government’s role in the July 7/11 Kampala bombings that killed at least 80 people and injured many others.

Other journalists facing the sedition charges include Charles Bichachi and John Njoroge formerly with the Independent Magazine, Radio One and TV Talk Show host Kalundi Robert Sserumaga, Siraje Lubwama formerly with the Daily Monitor, Musa Kigongo, presenter with the now closed CBS FM. Democratic Party Member of Parliament Betty Nambooze was also facing sedition charges.

As journalists were celebrating the court decision yesterday, Kanaabi warned that the fight was not yet over. “The fight for a free and independent media is still on,” he said. “There are still a number of hurdles for example the sectarianism section which has been upheld, the media offences section of the Police Act, the Press and Journalist Act and the Electronic Media Act, which have been used arbitrarily by the government to the extent of shutting down radio stations. We need to work harder to achieve total freedom.”

Journalists facing charges of promoting sectarianism include Andrew Mwenda, James Tumusiime and Ssemujju Ibrahim Nganda of The Observer and Bernard Tabaire, a Daily Monitor columnist and General Secretary of ACME.

State Attorney Patricia Mutesi vowed to appeal the court’s decision to quash the law on sedition.

But lawyer Nangwala noted that he was confident that Supreme Court would uphold the Constitutional Court’s decision given that the lower court had based on the precedent set by the country’s highest court on the question of laws that criminalise publication offences.

In 2004 the Supreme Court struck down the law against the publication of false news following a petition filed by Charles Onyango-Obbo and Mwenda, both of the Monitor at the time. They were represented by Nangwala.

More articles on previous sedition cases

Court summons Radio One’s Serumaga
Nambooze charged with sedition
MP Kyanjo charged with sedition
Journalists held over Kasubi tombs article
Journalists charged over sedition
Mwenda charged afresh

Thirty one media organisations across the world have penned a letter to Uganda President Yoweri Museveni asking him to withdraw proposed changes to the Ugandan media law.

The organisations under the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX), a global network of associations advocating for the freedom of expression, call on President Museveni to re-examine whether various Uganda media laws should remain on the books.

The most recent, the Proposed Amendment to Uganda’s Press and Journalist Act - Jan 29 2010, 2010, seeks to amend the Press and Journalist Act, 2000 (formerly Statute 1995) to require, crucially, the licensing of newspapers.

Journalists, media house owners, media associations, and civil society groups say the changes would severely limit media freedoms.

In the September 7 letter to the president, the members argue that the Bill threatens to undo years of press freedom under President’s Museveni’s regime.

“The Ugandan media have thrived under your government, scrutinizing public affairs, encouraging robust public debate, and exposing corruption and other forms of malfeasance. In that regard until recently Uganda was often cited as a good example of a vibrant media landscape in the region. The proposed Bill threatens to undo all this,” reads the letter in part.

What the new law proposes

To start a newspaper under present law one has to register with the General Post Office as a formality. The new proposals seek to change this by requiring the statutory Media Council to license newspapers annually and to revoke a licence in case of breach of licensing conditions. Say the proposals:

• The Council shall before issuing a license under this section take in (sic) account the following …
• Proof of existence of adequate technical facilities; and
• Social, cultural and economic values of the newspaper.

On revocation of the licence, it says:
The Council may revoke a license issued under this section on the following grounds –
• Publishing material that is prejudicial to national security, stability and unity;
• Publishing any matter that is injurious to Uganda’s relations with new (sic) neighbours or friendly countries;
• Publishing material that amounts to economic sabotage; and
• Contravention of any condition imposed in the license.

Other objectionable provisions include restriction of foreign ownership of newspapers in Uganda, and a jail term of up to two years or a fine of nearly Shs1,000,000 ($500) for those who do not obey the licensing requirements.

The IFEX members strongly object to the licensing of the newspapers saying it would create “an unnecessary administrative burden and would expand the potential for political bias that already exists by the required annual licensing of journalists under the current Press and Journalist Act”.

“Taken with the new proposals, Uganda's legal regime would violate the basic principles of freedom of expression. It would amount to licensing the very freedoms that are guaranteed not only by Article 29 of the Ugandan Constitution, but as well as in international instruments...,” adds the letter.

Defining the technical standards for the production of news as the amendment bill proposes, amounts to excessive veering into the media industry by the government, the IFEX coalition letter reads.
“The essence of newspapers has always been their content, not their technical standards. Press freedom cannot be the preserve of only those with ‘adequate technical standards’, it adds.

The coalition calls on President Museveni to lead the way in protecting and promoting the essential human right to freedom of expression by ensuring the journalists are able to freely practice their profession.


“A first step would be to withdraw the proposed amendment to the Press and Journalist Act, followed by revisions of the existing laws to bring them into conformity with the Ugandan Constitution and international standards,” the letter says.

Read full letter here...

Related Articles

• Attacks on the Press 2010: Uganda
• Ugandan Media Owners a Big Threat to Press Freedom
• Ugandan online editor accused of sedition
• New Media is focus of 2011 World Press Freedom Day
• ACME hosts international free speech advocates

One of the sticking points in the debate over the transparency and credibility of this year’s presidential election is over the announcement of the results.

Opposition candidate Kizza Besigye of the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) and the Interparty Cooperation (IPC) has declared time and again that his campaign team would announce its own results as part of their strategy to forestall rigging.

Besigye said in December that his campaign had set up a network of people who would monitor all polling stations across the country.

“Results are announced at polling stations,” he said. “My duty as a candidate is to tally my results. We shall announce what we would have compiled using the official declaration forms as Eng. Badru Kiggundu fidgets with figures.”

President Yoweri Museveni, a candidate who enjoys and sometimes abuses the powers of incumbency, has warned that Besigye will be arrested if he declares his own results. “Nobody can announce results here, not even me. That will be a short cut to Luzira for any candidate who does that,” Museveni said at a press conference in December.

“Uganda is not Ivory Coast; It is not Kenya. Don’t expect what is happening or happened in these countries to happen here,” he added. “Uganda is a country led by people who have fought wars. You can’t play that game here. He may have his computers but the only institution charged with announcing electoral results is the national Electoral Commission.”

For its part the Electoral Commission has said the opposition or any other organisations are free to announce preliminary results as long they don’t purport to be announcing the final results.

My own sense is Besigye’s campaign and other opposition teams indeed have a right to tally the results announced at the polling stations (and share them with the public) and to ensure that the final results announced nationally by the Electoral Commission reflect what came from the polling stations.

The reason the law provides for votes to be counted at the polling station and announced there is to ensure transparency. In the past, ballot boxes disappeared from the polling stations before the votes had been counted. In other cases, agents opened up some boxes and removed ballots that did not favour their candidates. In 1980, Paulo Muwanga, the Chairman of the Military Commission, usurped the powers of the Electoral Commission and barred Returning Officers from announcing results. And, as happened in Kenya in December 2007, electoral bodies in Africa have been known to announce results that differed from what was announced at the polling stations.

My concern as we head towards the February 18 elections is not whether it is illegal for the opposition or the media to announce the results. They have a right to do so, as long as they provide sufficient contextual information along the way.

As mentioned in the Election Coverage Guidelines published by the African Centre for Media Excellence following a participatory process that involved different important players including media houses, civil society , media regulators, the Electoral Commission, and political parties, media houses can release results as they come in from the different polling stations or district tally centres:

“The reporters will clarify at all times that the results they are announcing are from, say, one quarter of polling stations; from the stronghold of Candidate X; the results are not yet confirmed by the Electoral Commission. In other words, the release of partial results should be done with sufficient context not to excite or mislead voters. Media houses must know, however, that it is the constitutional mandate of the Electoral Commission to announce the definitive results.”

There are many reasons why the opposition and the media should inform their members and the public about their independent tallies as the results begin trickling in. Left on its own a partisan electoral body could decide to play with the declarations from the polling stations in favour of a particular candidate. A partisan electoral commission could also decide to announce selectively results from areas where a particular candidate is in the lead, which could discourage the supporters of the challengers from remaining vigilant and guarding their vote or prepare the country for the ‘inevitability’ of the favoured candidate’s win.

From my experience with the 2006 elections in Uganda and the 2007 elections in Kenya, the major challenge for the media is a logistical one. No media house has the capacity to have a correspondent at each of the nearly 24,000 polling stations countrywide (In fact, in previous elections, the opposition parties too did not have agents at each of the polling stations!)

In those circumstances, it becomes very difficult to monitor the transparency and credibility of the election tallies.

One possibility would have been for independent media houses to cooperate in the deployment of correspondents to ensure that as many polling stations are covered. The problem here is that we have only a handful of independent media houses. A majority of radio stations, especially in the countryside, are owned by politicians or businessmen close to the ruling party. In any case, they don’t have that many correspondents to spread around.

However, mainstream media houses could still deploy correspondents strategically and also rely on credible monitors to tally results from polling stations in several major districts.

Even if they may not be able to have a correspondent or monitor at each of the polling stations, they should be able to have a record against which the Electoral Commission’s final results can be compared.

Tips for Media on Handling Election Results

• Be clear about the source of the results you are announcing. Are they from the Electoral Commission, independent monitors, the opposition, or your own results?
• Be clear what percentage of the total voters in a particular area the results you are announcing represent. For instance, if you are reporting results from a constituency with 500 polling stations, you could say with 200 stations reporting (or 40 percent), Candidate X is leading by 60 per cent.
• Refer to previous voting trends and the known support distribution. For instance, you could say the Candidate X is leading, but the results from the more remote polling stations, where his opponent has enjoyed considerable support, are not yet in.
• Compare your own results (if you have any) with those of the Electoral Commission, but do not add up the two, as you risk double-counting.
• When announcing results from one source (e.g. the opposition), compare them with your own tallies (if you have any) and those of the Electoral Commission.
• Make it clear that you are announcing partial results (if you don’t yet have the final results), and that the Electoral Commission is yet to release the final results.

At least two Ugandan journalists have been reported murdered in one week by unknown assailants, causing fear in the media fraternity.

On 15 September, Mr Dickson Ssentongo, a news anchor with Prime Radio was waylaid by unidentified men at Nantabulirirwa village, Mukono district, who reportedly beat him to death.

Ssentongo, 29, had worked as a Luganda news presenter for Prime Radio for two years and as a part-time court assessor for the Mukono High Court, reports say. He also joined active politics and was an aspiring councillor for Nantabulirirwa Parish at Ggoma Sub-County on the Democratic Party ticket. He died at Mulago Hospital where he had been rushed for treatment.

On 12 September, Paul Kiggundu, also a radio journalist working for Top Radio in Rakai district was killed by a mob of bodaboda cyclists while recording scenes of the demolition of the homestead of a suspected robber and murderer in the area. The cyclists pounced on him, beat him and left him for dead as they accused him of spying for police. Mr Kiggundu identified himself as a journalist but he was not spared. He died on the way to hospital.

In a statement released by the Human Rights Network for Journalists-Uganda (HRNJ-Uganda), the two are the latest victims in a period of less than eight years. In 2004, the statement says, Wilbrod Kasujja, a news anchor at a community radio in Buwama, was murdered, but his killers have never been apprehended.

“As a journalist rights body, HRNJ-Uganda condemns in strongest terms possible this act of people taking the law into their hands,” said Mr Robert Ssempala, Board Chairman for HRNJ-Uganda. “We demand that police should act steadily fast to apprehend and bring all the perpetrators of this mob justice to book.”

International press freedom advocates have also come out to condemn the acts and called upon responsible authorities to hunt for the killers.

The head of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Irina Bokova, said in statement released on 15 September that Kiggundu’s killers should be brought to book quickly.

"I deplore the death of Paul Kiggundu,” she said. “He died in the exercise of his mission as a journalist, covering the news so that the public could be informed. His murder is a tragic illustration of the risks media professionals take every day in the name of freedom of expression. I call on the Ugandan authorities to make every effort to investigate this crime and bring the culprits to justice."

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) also urged authorities to bring the culprits to justice warning that this is a politically sensitive time as Ugandans get ready for the 2011 general elections.

"Authorities must do their utmost to ensure the perpetrators are brought to justice, especially at this politically sensitive time in the lead-up to national elections," CPJ's East Africa Consultant Tom Rhodes said.
Reporters Without Borders has asked authorities to protect journalists from such heinous acts.

“This incident highlights the frequency to which journalists are exposed to violence because they are on the front line of demonstrations, conflicts or events that get out of control and are seen as unwanted witnesses,” the group said in a statement. “We urge the Ugandan authorities to deal severely with those responsible, so that such incidents do not recur.”
Police are investigating the murders but no arrests have been made yet.

Harassment
In another related incident, last week, a photojournalist was assaulted by a prominent businessman who accused him of taking his picture without his permission. Mr Arthur Kintu, a photographer with The New Vision newspaper was slapped by Mr Hassan Basajjabalaba during the ruling party’s primaries in Wakiso district.

Mr Kintu, who had been accredited to cover the function, said, “I was photographing Basajjabalaba upon learning that he had been re- elected to the post. He angrily charged at me asking who had given me the permission to take his photos. He slapped me twice and boxed me in the face. He shattered my lips and I started bleeding all over,” Kintu said.

It has been reported that the same businessman roughed up Mr Ivan Kalanzi who works for Radio Two (locally known as Akaboozi) two months ago at the Uganda Moslem Supreme Council headquarters at Old Kampala.
Mr Basajjabalaba is scheduled to appear before court on 17 September to answer charges of assaulting Mr Kintu.

Barred

In yet another related incident, on Wednesday morning, a judge banned journalists from covering her sessions, accusing them of stalking her.

The controversial former Inspector General of Government, Justice Faith Mwondha, barred Frank Mugabi and Jackie Nambogga of The New Vision, Aldon Walukamba of Uganda Radio Network and Catherine Asiyo of Kiira FM from entering court.

The judge reportedly said journalists should seek her permission before covering her sessions. “I understand you people are from the media. Why are you following me? I come to court to work and I don't work through press. I don't need publicity," she said. "You should first study judges who want cameras. Go away until my session is over.”

The presidential and parliamentary elections are over, but new results will keep coming in for another five days or so.

The local news media have reported on the results quite comprehensively. In particular, we have seen some significant strides in television coverage of the elections. Kudos!

But the one area where our television stations — and newspapers too — still need improvement is on the presentation of results.

We mentioned in our previous offering on “Announcing the election results” the importance of reporters providing sufficient context about the results being announced so as not to excite or mislead voters. In particular, we emphasised the importance of clarifying at all times how many polling stations or districts were represented in the results being announced, the kind of support that different candidates have enjoyed in those areas, and so on.

Unfortunately, we have not seen consistency in the application of these principles across our media platforms. In reporting about the MP elections, for instance, a number of newspapers presented provisional results on Saturday showing who had been kicked out of Parliament and who had survived. By Sunday, it was clear that some people who were reported to have lost had won and vice versa. There was a lot of confusion over candidates such as FDC’s Salaamu Musumba and NRM Chief Whip Daudi Migereko.

It would have helped if the media had shown clearly the percentage of polling stations that had reported in each constituency by the time they went to press. A good newspaper report could have provided this kind of contextual information:

“In Busoma constituency, Candidate X was leading Y 18,000 to 16,000 votes with 60 percent of polling stations reporting. These don’t include results from Place A, B, and C which are Candidate Y’s stronghold. About 20,000 voters were registered to vote from the polling stations that had not yet reported.” This kind of information would help supporters of the different candidates hold back what could clearly turn out to be premature celebrations.

In addition, (I am not sure if this information was not made available by the Electoral Commission) but the newspapers should also have done a better job naming the districts from which the provisional results that were being reported at different points were coming from. Kenyan television stations did this very well in the 2007 elections. That way, voters are able to know if their candidate still has a chance (for instance, if results from his or her strongholds have not been reported yet).

Television reports had this weakness too, but they also had another kind of problem — the visual presentation of numbers.

Having chosen to show the provisional totals for the different presidential candidates starting with incumbent Yoweri Museveni, who enjoyed an early lead, some stations kept on mixing up the order. Olara Otunnu, who was at some point above Nobert Mao, would appear below the DP candidate, while Jaberi Bidandi Ssali who was last for most of the first two nights, was shown to be above Samuel Lubega.

EXAMPLE A (POOR)

In Example A, while it appears the results have been presented in descending order, with the leading candidate first and the last one at the bottom, closer scrutiny suggests the order is in fact jumbled up. Otunnu who has a lower percentage is placed higher than Mao while Bwanika is placed ahead of Kamya who has a higher percentage than his. Example B is much easier for the viewer to digest as the results are presented in a perfect descending order.

EXAMPLE B (BETTER)

Similarly, there was no reason for TV reporters to come close to biting their tongues trying to announce the exact figures Electoral Commission Chairman Kiggundu kept reading out at intervals. They could have rounded off the results, which would have made it far easier to read on TV, and then presented the exact figures on the screen.

Example: “President Museveni received about five million four hundred thousand votes, representing 68 per cent of votes cast while his closest challenger Kizza Besigye had about two million votes, or 26 per cent of the votes cast.”

This is better than “President Museveni received five million four hundred twenty eight thousand three hundred and sixty nine votes....” which some of my friends on TV used.

My other disappointment with newspapers and TV so far (it’s not too late) has been the failure to use the map of Uganda to provide context for the results. Had they done this, it would have shown quite easily, for instance, that Museveni had won convincingly in Buganda, made such significant gains in northern Uganda, and so on.

A similar graphic could have been used to report the results of the parliamentary races. Which parties won in which regions? Buganda may still appear “yellow country” but we would have seen DP’s green popping up in Masaka and elsewhere. In addition (and again this is not too late for both TV and newspapers) it would have been good to use some simple graphics to show areas in which different parties had made gains or losses or retained their support.

Hopefully, we shall see some of these details in the coming days as complete results from the presidential and parliamentary elections as well upcoming local government elections are reported.